Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think from a religious standpoint the argument against gay marriage is pretty straightforward. It is not part of their made up belief system (full stop). This does make me question what motivates gay people to want to be married before a god who allegedly considers them an abomination. It is a bit like black people joining the KKK. They could do it, but why would they want to? It just sounds like trolling.

As I'm all in favour of trolling the KKK and the Catholic Church, I'm also very much in favour of gay marriage.

However in all seriousness, it is a somewhat private group; they should be able to dictate their own customs, and their custom is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think this is necessarily discriminatory because gay people can still get married within the organization. So long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman (what's the issue?). If you really had your heart set on same sex marriages then perhaps Catholicism is not for you.

However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony. And if people want to call civil unions marriages then I don't see who that hurts.

text removed.

Post anything like this again and you're out of here.

Reds8n

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What would be a good middle road?

Not giving a feth what two legal adults are doing and what kind of civil contract two adults are signing?

 Smacks wrote:
However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony. And if people want to call civil unions marriages then I don't see who that hurts.

Man. The western world's really going to suck in about thirty years.

 Seaward wrote:
Man. The western world's really going to suck in about thirty years.

It's going to suck tomorrow.

But I'm not sure I really follow you. Care to elaborate?
What is it exactly that is going to hit crisis point in 30 years?

 Smacks wrote:

However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony.

Seriously?

That's pretty absurd if you ask me. As a "somewhat private group" they should be able to deny whomever they want to the ability to use their facilities.

Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.

 d-usa wrote:
Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.

Maybe. The first thing I thought of was that forcing them to do that would be a strong case for a violation of the 4th amendment.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.

Maybe. The first thing I thought of was that forcing them to do that would be a strong case for a violation of the 4th amendment.

Just out of curiosity, how would that be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

It could be argued that forcing a church to perform a ceremony they did not want to would be akin to a seizure of property.

They probably would have made that argument to defeat Brown vs Board of Education if that were true.

 cincydooley wrote:
It could be argued that forcing a church to perform a ceremony they did not want to would be akin to a seizure of property.

Yeah... no.

Renting of private property is not seizure of property; not even close. The Fourth Amendment provides protection of the citizen against unreasonable search and seizure from entities of the Federal Government (and by extension, the States, through incorporation).

And who would be forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to? The government I presume?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
They probably would have made that argument to defeat Brown vs Board of Education if that were true.

Public school vs private church, perhaps?

 d-usa wrote:
Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.

This isn't all that common in the US. The first, and really only "secular" organization that I can think of to use churches, is the Boy Scouts of America. But they tend to use Mormon churches, and they aren't Christians anyway, so no one really cares, until they try to push mormonism onto the poor kids who are stuck in Boy Scouts.


Now, As you are saying it's pretty common for churches to be rented out... How funny would it be to have Ghost and Behemoth and bands like them do a show at the cathedral in Cologne?

 cincydooley wrote:
And who would be forcing the churches to marry people they didn't want to? The government I presume?

You are confusing "renting out the church building to a private group" and "forcing a church to marry gay people."

I don't think churches in America should be forced to rent their buildings to anyone to perform any sort of marriage, unless it is ordained by the church itself. If they want to, that's fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory at all and they should have final say in the matter. Besides, there are plenty of other places to get married and if your particular religion doesn't recognize your marriage, find a new religion; there is no civil punishment for apostasy in America.

That being said, no one can force any church to perform a wedding ceremony on anyone, gay or straight. There is no one seriously pushing for that because it is totally unrealistic and runs contrary to religious liberty (it is just like the Catholic Church not allowing people who have been divorced to marry in the Church... it's stupid, but it is what they believe).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Part if that might just be a country thing. In Germany it is pretty common for churches to be rented out for all kinds of secular activities. Not sure if it is similar on the UK, so maybe that is part of that mindset.

This isn't all that common in the US. The first, and really only "secular" organization that I can think of to use churches, is the Boy Scouts of America. But they tend to use Mormon churches, and they aren't Christians anyway, so no one really cares, until they try to push mormonism onto the poor kids who are stuck in Boy Scouts.


Now, As you are saying it's pretty common for churches to be rented out... How funny would it be to have Ghost and Behemoth and bands like them do a show at the cathedral in Cologne?

Actually we are Christian.

I am baffled by people seriously thinking that by renting a room / place you are allowed to do anything you want. That isn't how renting anything works...

Relapse wrote:

Actually we are Christian.

The reasons you are not, are a whole other thread, so I'll just leave it at that, and we'll have to agree to disagree.




@Sigvatr. In regards to holding a wedding ceremony, if you are renting a church, which is a private space they can deny or accept who they want to marry. They're not a housing development so there's no "anti-discrimination" going on. Having the government come in and say, "Sorry Catholics, but if the gays want to use your church to get married, not only are we forcing you to let them use your building, but you have to use your priests and whatever else they need" is all kinds of wrong, because it violates their ability to pursue the 1st Amendment.

That is my point. If you rent a place, you don't own it. You don't make the rules of conduct.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That is my point. If you rent a place, you don't own it. You don't make the rules of conduct.

But see, the "land lord" has to agree to the rental in the first place, and why the government can't force churches of any kind to open their doors to people who follow a lifestyle they don't agree with.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Actually we are Christian.

The reasons you are not, are a whole other thread, so I'll just leave it at that, and we'll have to agree to disagree.




@Sigvatr. In regards to holding a wedding ceremony, if you are renting a church, which is a private space they can deny or accept who they want to marry. They're not a housing development so there's no "anti-discrimination" going on. Having the government come in and say, "Sorry Catholics, but if the gays want to use your church to get married, not only are we forcing you to let them use your building, but you have to use your priests and whatever else they need" is all kinds of wrong, because it violates their ability to pursue the 1st Amendment.

Agreed on the agree to disagree.

 Peregrine wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
From a non-religious perspective, I find it to be abnormal, deviant behavior that is immoral.

I would love to hear your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so". It's been too long since I've had the pleasure of humiliating someone who dared to make such a horrible argument.

Jesus actually said nothing about homosexuality, so even that falls apart. Let's just play devil's advocate here (a more ironic use of that phrase there's never been) and I'll actually try to give the religious and secular counter arguments.

I'm a christian, one who actually reads his bible to boot, and I don't really see the normally parrotted religious argument against homosexuality as valid. It's only really addressed twice, once during the laws of hygiene and diet Moses was laying down; where it's listed among other taboos such as eating shellfish and wearing gaudy clothes. It's mentioned only briefly in the later New Testament; in both cases it seems to be a matter of ensuring the survival of family bloodlines in a time when there were a lot less people around. I actually remember the advice "don't eat too much candy or drink too much booze, or you'll get a stomach ache" having more stress put on it in the scriptures than avoiding gayness. The fact that it's blown up to such a huge issue by evangelicals is baffling to me.

I think I've only heard two secular arguments that hold water. (While still not standing up to close scrutiny.) One is that the state should encourage the nuclear family as it is much better in raising children than alternate models. While it's true that stable households are much more nurturing the evidence for opposite sex couples raising more well adjusted children is practically nonexistent.

I think the only other argument I've heard is that since the majority of citizens are against it, it's undemocratic to have same sex marriage forcibly recognized. This argument shows a fundamental ignorance of law, as the US is (supposed to be at least) a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Civil rights are NOT up for debate; they are an intrinsic part of living here. (Again in theory.) The opposite point of view led to the civil war.

 Smacks wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Man. The western world's really going to suck in about thirty years.

It's going to suck tomorrow.

But I'm not sure I really follow you. Care to elaborate?
What is it exactly that is going to hit crisis point in 30 years?

Thirty years is roughly around the time folks of your generation can be expected to be running the world.

On the other hand, I console myself with the knowledge that I was liberal when I was young, too.

While I can't speak to other countries, in America any discussion of churches being forced to do anything is a spurious red herring. The debate over gay marriage has nothing to do with what happens in churches and is entirely an issue of secular law. Churches are always allowed to discriminate when it comes to whom they allow to use their facilities. Catholic churches typically only allow Catholic couples to wed, synagogues only allow Jewish couples, mosques only allow Muslims, etc. Gay marriage has been recognized in 17 states, and not a single church that condemns gay relationships has been forced to open its doors to gay weddings. Many churches, including Christian churches, have performed gay wedding ceremonies even in states where gay marriage is not recognized.

In America, you can currently marry anyone and anything. I once saw a man marry a horse on Jerry Springer. This woman married herself. There is nothing preventing gay people from having a wedding ceremony, exchanging vows, and becoming married. The only question is: Does the state recognize it as valid? Does the state allow the transfer of property tax-free at the time of death? Does the state recognize the guardianship of a partner in times of medical crises? Does a spouse eligible to be covered under their government-employed partner's health insurance? That's what is up for debate. Gay people were getting married long before it was legal recognized anywhere. The only issue is "does the state validate these marriages in the courts/matters of civil law," and if your position is anything other than "No, the state should not validate gay marriages in the courts/matters of civil law," then you're not actually against gay marriage.

It's frustrating seeing these debates get side-tracked into irrelevant issues like the right of churches to be homophobic. Nobody is challenging that.

as they say seaward,


any young man who is not a liberal, has no heart

any old man that is not conservative, has no brain

 Seaward wrote:
On the other hand, I console myself with the knowledge that I was liberal when I was young, too.

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." - Robert Anton Wilson

 easysauce wrote:
as they say seaward,


any young man who is not a liberal, has no heart

any old man that is not conservative, has no brain

I hate that saying. as if people re supposed to follow a predetermined path of ideals

 Seaward wrote:
Thirty years is roughly around the time folks of your generation can be expected to be running the world.

On the other hand, I console myself with the knowledge that I was liberal when I was young, too.

Shame you didn't grow up with the sense to ask someone how old they are before you go making assumptions.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony.

Seriously?

That's pretty absurd if you ask me. As a "somewhat private group" they should be able to deny whomever they want to the ability to use their facilities.

They should, but not based on race, religion, sexuality or other protected groups as that is clearly discrimination. I didn't say they should be forced to conduct the ceremony. All I'm saying is IF they rent out the building to the public for weddings then, like any other function room, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If gays or humanists or blacks or disabled people want to use the space then obviously they should be accommodated for.

 Smacks wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Thirty years is roughly around the time folks of your generation can be expected to be running the world.

On the other hand, I console myself with the knowledge that I was liberal when I was young, too.

Shame you didn't grow up with the sense to ask someone how old they are before you go making assumptions.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

However I do think that the Catholic Church should not be allowed to discriminate against people who wish to hire a church building for a civil ceremony.

Seriously?

That's pretty absurd if you ask me. As a "somewhat private group" they should be able to deny whomever they want to the ability to use their facilities.

They should, but not based on race, religion, sexuality or other protected groups as that is clearly discrimination. I didn't say they should be forced to conduct the ceremony. All I'm saying is IF they rent out the building to the public for weddings then, like any other function room, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If gays or humanists or blacks or disabled people want to use the space then obviously they should be accommodated for.

In regards to 'weddings' you almost never actually 'rent' the church. You get to request to use the church by being a 'member' of the church in good standing (which means you have been up to date with your tithes) and you usually get the pastor or priest to agree to the ceremony and pay them a nominal fee. You then also pay any of the people who work the event like an organist and such.

So you can't force someone to officiate a wedding, and you can't force a church to let you use it for a marriage.

And discrimination happens every day and is perfectly legal. You are talking about protected classes and discrimination in very particular industries where there are explicit laws to protect specific protected classes from very specific types of discrimination. We have explicit laws on fair housing and employment.

But this is the crux of the issue which some groups are trying to use the 'gay marriage' debate to put an end to religious exemptions and try to have religions classified as hate groups. They want the wealth of religious groups taxed and confiscated for public use and for them to not be able to operate financially outside the current tax code and to be criminalized should they have views which are 'discriminatory'. Gay marriage isn't even the issue to them, just a weapon to use against religious organizations.

(I am not arguing for or against these views.)

 Smacks wrote:


They should, but not based on race, religion, sexuality or other protected groups as that is clearly discrimination. I didn't say they should be forced to conduct the ceremony. All I'm saying is IF they rent out the building to the public for weddings then, like any other function room, they should not be allowed to discriminate. If gays or humanists or blacks or disabled people want to use the space then obviously they should be accommodated for.

It's not discrimination. You purposefully rent a building from an institution you know that it opposes your belief in some regards and then want to play the gay card? Sorry, but that's so far from credible...with the same logic, it would be okay to rent a mosque to hold a Christian mass?

Again: renting does NOT make a place your place. It is NOT your place. It's NOT you who makes the rules. The OWNER makes those. If you don't like that, don't rent a church. Build one. Buy an old one.